Title
People vs. Andaya
Case
G.R. No. L-48735
Decision Date
Jan 19, 1981
Rodolfo Andaya, a recidivist, was sentenced to death for murder, not attempted robbery with homicide, due to treachery and quasi-recidivism. Mitigating factors like voluntary surrender and exemplary conduct were noted, but the death penalty was upheld, with a recommendation for executive clemency.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48735)

Nature of the Case and Background

Rodolfo Andaya initially entered a conditional plea of guilty during the earlier proceedings but later, with the advice of counsel, opted for a full and unqualified plea of guilty after receiving clear warnings about the potential consequences, namely the imposition of the death penalty due to aggravating circumstances, including quasi-recidivism. The prosecution presented multiple witnesses, including Judge Sabas Sayon and several police officers, who testified about the events leading up to the murder, affirming Andaya's involvement and confessions.

Evidence and Testimonies

The prosecution’s case rested on several key testimonies detailing the background and circumstances of the crime. Judge Sayon testified about Andaya's affidavits, where he confessed to stabbing Malbas. Other witnesses, including Sgt. Felix Luego and Deputy Chief of Police Bernabe Dujali, corroborated Andaya's confessions, emphasizing his voluntary admission of guilt during the investigation. Testimonies indicated that the murder occurred after an invitation from Andaya's co-accused to participate in a plan to rob Malbas, which ultimately resulted in his death.

Defense's Argument

Andaya's defense sought to classify his actions under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, arguing that the murder should be considered as "attempted robbery with homicide," thereby qualifying for a lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of death. The defense pointed to Andaya’s statements during trial that indicated the crime was initiated for robbery. However, they failed to establish that the intent to rob was present at the moment of the killing, as evidenced by subsequent admissions made by Andaya indicating personal motivations for the act.

Prosecution's Rebuttal and Court Rationale

The Solicitor General argued against the defense's position, asserting that the killing was not tied to any theft as no robbery occurred in conjunction with the murder. The Court noted that Andaya himself admitted to killing Malbas for personal revenge rather than for robbery, thus negating the applicability of the lesser charge. The Court then affirmed that the crime perpetrated reached the level of murder, being aggravated by the accused's status as a quasi-recidivist.

Concl

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.